FWIS3

I'm seeing a lot of chatter on my FB feed about the FBI's decision not to recommend charging Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified material. Most of the chatter is from rabid anti-Clinton people but not all. Some are ridiculously comparing her case with that of Manning or Snowden. One thread asks whether a recently disciplined submarine CO should appeal his punishment based on the FBI's Clinton decision.

In most of the reasonable commentary (leaving out the rabid anti-Clinton stuff), I see a failure to recognize two points, I believe.

First, a senior cabinet member must be given leeway to act, even if others are not authorized and may be prosecuted for doing the same thing, particularly if the transgression is not egregious, as it wasn't here. I'm not saying that Secretary Clinton's method of handling email was proper, but it isn't the same as some low ranking government employee doing it. And it doesn't mean the 'rich and powerful' can get away with stuff. It means that the third highest ranking member of the US administration and the highest ranking foreign affairs official gets to bend some rules that aren't tailored for her or her office anyway. Recall also that the two previous Secretarys of State (Rice and Powell) did the same thing. In hindsight, we should (probably) make a hard rule that high-ranking cabinet members use the secure email servers. I say probably because I do not know enough to say it definitely should be that way. Perhaps a better way is to have the private server secured if requested by the official. I don't know, and to quote a FWIS member on FB, neither do you.

Second, prosecutors routinely make judgments on whether to prosecute even where a crime has evidently been committed. Factors such as probability of successful conviction and mitigating circumstances are weighed. Here, the FBI is advising the DOJ on how to make that judgment and that is how it should be. We cannot and should not prosecute every transgression. I'm reminded of the President Clinton impeachment farce. Recall that Clinton probably lied in sworn testimony about having an affair. That's perjury, a crime. But many federal prosecutors and former prosecutors commented that in cases of marital infidelity, the guy almost always lies about his affairs and that no reasonable prosecutor would ever bring a charge of perjury in those cases, absent mitigating circumstances. It just isn't worth the trouble and would rarely succeed anyway (perjury is hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt). Here, let's ignore the political ramifications of the election and ask - do we really want to haul a former Secretary of State into court to answer criminal charges because she used a private email server? Do we want to indict Rice and Powell too? And who knows how many other cabinet members? The answer is clearly, I think, no. What we want to do is establish clear rules on the matter specific to the situation (cabinet member using email) and move forward.

That's my view. You may think I'm politically biased because I'm a Hillary supporter but I also would not haul Rice or Powell into court, and I agreed with President Ford's decision to pardon Nixon (different situation obviously but I mention it because many Democrats wanted Nixon tried. I didn't).

Take this as you will from someone that doesn't like Hillary.
Comparing her situation to Powell or Rice is from what I have read, like comparing chalk to cheese.
Hillary set up a private server in her house, as opposed to using a private email address.
The two are from an IT perspective very different beasts.

You can read up more about this here

The other thing to note is that once again, she lied about that difference by claiming there was none when in fact there was a huge one.
Just another thing to the list of things that make me not trust her.

As for people higher up being able to do things that the lower ones can't. I agree with you. They have the right to authorize killing and murder. As it should be. So what's a little security breach in comparison.

vendic wrote:Just another thing to the list of things that make me not trust her.

This isn't about whether you trust her. It's about the FBI's decision to recommend not prosecuting.

Your hatred of Hillary Clinton has been noted.

Yes I do and I never made that a secret.
But did you note the difference in what she claimed and what Powell and Rice did or did you dismiss it?

I will also note that out of my entire post, you replied to only one line, that appears to dismiss anything I write based on my dislike of her. Yet in my first sentence I stated that I don't like her in the interest of providing disclosure.

I provided a source that many Hillary supporters use as support for her in the past.
So that even though I don't like her, its clear that there is a difference between what Powell and Rice did and what Hillary did and even impartial sources acknowledge it. A large part of your OP relies on the misconception that they she did the same thing as others. That's not correct and remains true whether I like her or not.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about the merits of Hillary Clinton. You've made your opinion known many times here and on FB and frankly, often in an insulting manner given that you know that some of your friends (me, for example) are Clinton supporters. That isn't this thread.

This thread is about two points: 1) high-ranking officials should have leeway that others don't get; and 2) prosecutors often don't prosecute even though there is evidence of a crime.

I'll concede that I don't know enough about Rice's and Powell's email use and concede that the comparison may not be valid. But that isn't a 'large part' of my argument.

I didn't quote any of the rest of your post because it did not address either of the two points (your last paragraph can only be taken as sarcastic).

And of course it's more than Powell and Rice. It appears to be a common practice that high ranking officials in the US gov't have been doing for years.

I believe I agree with Geo. Maybe we need to tweak the processes and requirements so that people don't feel the need to violate these rules and look at the intent as to why the rules were broken. I believe there's at least as much of a case to pursue charges in the previous administration as there is here. But where to we go from here aside from just slinging crap back and forth?

bla bla... fz posted crap again.

Thumper wrote:And of course it's more than Powell and Rice. It appears to be a common practice that high ranking officials in the US gov't have been doing for years.

Now that is interesting. Nice find.

Email is a relatively new thing in terms of politics. I'm pretty sure this is where the problem stems, although all of them know that they should ask if something is permitted or not. They seem to choose to not ask as it gives plausible deniability that they "thought" they were acting within the rules. e.g. Hillary claimed that Powell and Rice did the same, so it was ok for her to do so. But she did not do what they did and had she asked, approval would not have been granted. That has been stated officially.
I also remember reading somewhere that she didn't want to ask because she didn't want to get a no for an answer, but retracing that source would take more of my time and I don't really give a crap at this point.

I'll go on record and say that geonuc's explanation and the responses that followed have convinced me that I don't think she should be prosecuted whether she did it willingly or not.

I'm not sure where we draw the line. As an example, if President Bush and Vice President Cheney really did commit war crimes, I think they should still be prosecuted, but all I know about them comes from the media and I trust them about as much as I trust Hillary.

SciFi Chick wrote:I'll go on record and say that geonuc's explanation and the responses that followed have convinced me that I don't think she should be prosecuted whether she did it willingly or not.

I'm not sure where we draw the line. As an example, if President Bush and Vice President Cheney really did commit war crimes, I think they should still be prosecuted, but all I know about them comes from the media and I trust them about as much as I trust Hillary.

And that's why I started the thread. I have an opinion on when prosecution is appropriate and I'm not sure how many people would agree with me.

Another recent example is General David Petraeus, who gave secret documents to his biographer who was also his mistress. A much more serious offense, I'd say, but I'm not sure we want to punish him beyond what was done. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and got probation. Is that enough or did the general get the benefit of judicial leeway for high-ranking officials?

I'll probably get thrown out of the Democratic party for saying it but I don't think Bush or Cheney should be prosecuted for war crimes. Impeached, yes, but it's too late for that.

I'm guessing we'd also agree that we should let everyone who has ever smoked marijuana out of jail, assuming that's why they're in jail. I honestly think prison should be for very heinous crimes, and I include some white collar crimes in the realm of heinous. Other things can be punished in more effective ways.

The question should never have been, should we prosecute Hillary. That's a dumb easy question to answer yes to.

The question should have been, why is there a set of standard that can be flouted by the higher ups while I would go to jail for the same? One set of rules for you, another for me. Sounds like a good premise for a book, if only someone would have written a book about that. What kind of name could we have given it?

Disclaimer: I think Manning is filthy dirt bag who deserves the death penalty. And Snowden is a douche bag who is quilty of high treason and should also get the death penalty.

Anyone who compares Clinton to Snowden or Manning is either being sarcastic, facetious, or is very ignorant. Clinton did not knowingly aid the enemies of the U.S. and most of the rest of the Western world. Snowden and Manning did.

If you read the brief the FBI provided they clearly stated that it would be difficult to prosecute what Clinton did as a crime. The DOJ could have taken that under advisement and charged her anyway. And given the likely hood that they would have lost they would have been giving the appearance of attempting to tamper with a national elections i.e. indicting and trying the DNC Nominee for a crime. It would have appeared as if they were trying to make Hilary lose the election. Tampering with a national election is a very serious crime for a public servant. It is strictly against the law for any government employee to interfere with, campaign for, solicit, or in any way attempt to sway an election while working as a government employee.

This is from the Hatch Act

Federal employees are still forbidden to use their authority to affect the results of an election.

Given the low probability of winning a criminal case AND the appearance of trying to affect the result of an election if I were Lynch I would RUN from this one. I wouldn't touch it with a 400 foot pole. If there were a "better" smoking gun it might be a different story.

SciFiFisher wrote:Given the low probability of winning a criminal case AND the appearance of trying to affect the result of an election if I were Lynch I would RUN from this one. I wouldn't touch it with a 400 foot pole. If there were a "better" smoking gun it might be a different story.

This is my second point.

SciFi Chick wrote:I'm guessing we'd also agree that we should let everyone who has ever smoked marijuana out of jail, assuming that's why they're in jail. I honestly think prison should be for very heinous crimes, and I include some white collar crimes in the realm of heinous. Other things can be punished in more effective ways.

We do agree on that, but marijuana crimes are different than what we have here. I don't think consuming, possessing or selling any kind of drug should be a crime at all. I do think that mishandling classified information can rise to the level of a criminal offense.

Stavro wrote:The question should never have been, should we prosecute Hillary. That's a dumb easy question to answer yes to.

The question should have been, why is there a set of standard that can be flouted by the higher ups while I would go to jail for the same? One set of rules for you, another for me. Sounds like a good premise for a book, if only someone would have written a book about that. What kind of name could we have given it?

I'm answering no to your 'dumb easy question'. Given that the Director of the FBI, and his staff that investigated the situation, also answer in the negative, perhaps it's not such a 'dumb easy question'.

Your next paragraph speaks to my first point. Stripping the sarcasm, you don't agree with it, I gather.

geonuc wrote:We do agree on that, but marijuana crimes are different than what we have here.

Indeed. I was just going off topic, as I have a tendency to do.

SciFi Chick wrote:

geonuc wrote:We do agree on that, but marijuana crimes are different than what we have here.

Indeed. I was just going off topic, as I have a tendency to do.

Going off topic and derailing a thread are FWIS standards of conduct. Carry on!

geonuc wrote:

Stavro wrote:The question should never have been, should we prosecute Hillary. That's a dumb easy question to answer yes to.

The question should have been, why is there a set of standard that can be flouted by the higher ups while I would go to jail for the same? One set of rules for you, another for me. Sounds like a good premise for a book, if only someone would have written a book about that. What kind of name could we have given it?

I'm answering no to your 'dumb easy question'. Given that the Director of the FBI, and his staff that investigated the situation, also answer in the negative, perhaps it's not such a 'dumb easy question'.

Your opinion does not matter though, truly it doesn't and neither does the FBI directors. After passing our NACLC/MBI and later SSBI and getting our clearances we all had the various trainings, we all knew we would be prosecuted because that is what the law said....not you or I or the FBI director....the law. You paid attention during that right? They made it rather clear. We just don't have the political cover of being named Clinton and would be in jail. There is a reason there is a revulsion in the trenches. Those in the trenches can't buy their way out when the government prosecutes them. Clinton can and would have. "justice" has a price, can you pay it?

Your next paragraph speaks to my first point. Stripping the sarcasm, you don't agree with it, I gather.

Some being more equal than others? if they're going to be the top hogs then they know even better what they should and should not do. They should be more equal, and the higher you are the farther you should fall. Gravity is normally a thing.

Stavro, I see you have difficulty carrying on a serious discussion without resorting to snark and sarcasm. So I'll say this final thing to you (unless your manner of discourse changes dramatically): my opinion matters to me and it matters in the context of a forum discussion on the right and wrong of a situation. Obviously I know my opinion does not have weight with respect to what actually happens to the former secretary. Your opinion, however, not only carries no weight with respect to the latter, it also now carries no weight with me in this discussion or any other.

Thumper wrote:And of course it's more than Powell and Rice. It appears to be a common practice that high ranking officials in the US gov't have been doing for years.

I believe I agree with Geo. Maybe we need to tweak the processes and requirements so that people don't feel the need to violate these rules and look at the intent as to why the rules were broken. I believe there's at least as much of a case to pursue charges in the previous administration as there is here. But where to we go from here aside from just slinging crap back and forth?

I agree completely with Geonuc. And yes, nice find Thumper, I forgotten about that.

SciFiFisher wrote:Disclaimer: I think Manning is filthy dirt bag who deserves the death penalty. And Snowden is a douche bag who is quilty of high treason and should also get the death penalty.

Anyone who compares Clinton to Snowden or Manning is either being sarcastic, facetious, or is very ignorant. Clinton did not knowingly aid the enemies of the U.S. and most of the rest of the Western world. Snowden and Manning did.

I could see Life in Prison for Manning (I think Manning is a little screwed up in the head, Snowden knew exactly what he was doing), but otherwise I completely agree.

geonuc wrote:Stavro, I see you have difficulty carrying on a serious discussion without resorting to snark and sarcasm. So I'll say this final thing to you (unless your manner of discourse changes dramatically): my opinion matters to me and it matters in the context of a forum discussion on the right and wrong of a situation. Obviously I know my opinion does not have weight with respect to what actually happens to the former secretary. Your opinion, however, not only carries no weight with respect to the latter, it also now carries no weight with me in this discussion or any other.

Words are a funny thing. They have meanings, often not the meanings people think they do. For instance, sarcasm requires "irony" and "contempt" neither of which are present in the literary construct presented. "Snark" is not a word often used. In fact, most dictionaries don't place it. "snarky" is, it involves being critical or cranky. I have probably been described as cranky and critical before. Not a bad thing it keeps the echo chamber at bay. Hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello

By the by, the phrase for the construct I used that you were looking for was "Serious discussion without rhetorical questions". The questions weren't meant to be answered, I already knew the answer to them. They are used for literary effect and to convey a point politely. Serious discussion requires two sides of a coin. Preferably a fair one, but one none the less. Largely why we only discuss these things in whispers with people we work with and worked with, we all lived under the sword of damocles. How that horse hair did not snap in this case is one of the great mysteries......opinions matter not for we would have been decapitated. That it did not happen now shows the loss of rule of law, and the rise of divine right once more. No longer reserved for those born to it, but those with money and political power. Long live the king!

Ok. So there are two issues here. If it was illegal for her to use a private server, she should suffer whatever consequences are commensurate with that crime.

The second is....what was in the content of the emails? The reason her work emails need to be done on a government server is so that they can be read by outside parties if needed, right? So, what do people expect to find? What if the only thing she did wrong was use the private server, but if all of the deleted emails were recovered and there was absolutely no evidence of anything but poor jokes and scheduling meetings, what then?

I understand the trust issue, I guess. If she is trying to hide something as secretary of state, then how can we trust her not to do that as president? So, to those of you (here, or in the media) who think that, I genuinely want to know what people think she might try to hide and how it would be detrimental to our country. At least, more detrimental to our country than what Trump would do.

Ok, that last part came out a little more loaded than I had intended....you know me, I don't like to stir up controversy. But there's already enough her so I might as well add to it.

I think the FBI guy simply decided he wasn't going to be the one to toss a potential president under the bus (i.e. job security).

There is a lot to this that smells like dog shit, but we are still stuck with the results and the FBI will have to deal with their decision on this for a long time to come. EVERYONE with classified information arrested or charged in the future will use this as a case in point.

pumpkinpi wrote:Ok. So there are two issues here. If it was illegal for her to use a private server, she should suffer whatever consequences are commensurate with that crime.

The second is....what was in the content of the emails? The reason her work emails need to be done on a government server is so that they can be read by outside parties if needed, right? So, what do people expect to find? What if the only thing she did wrong was use the private server, but if all of the deleted emails were recovered and there was absolutely no evidence of anything but poor jokes and scheduling meetings, what then?

I understand the trust issue, I guess. If she is trying to hide something as secretary of state, then how can we trust her not to do that as president? So, to those of you (here, or in the media) who think that, I genuinely want to know what people think she might try to hide and how it would be detrimental to our country. At least, more detrimental to our country than what Trump would do.

Ok, that last part came out a little more loaded than I had intended....you know me, I don't like to stir up controversy. But there's already enough her so I might as well add to it.

Not sure what you're referring to by hiding emails. Yes, she did not include personal emails in her disclosure but that isn't what the FBI is investigating. They are investigating (or were) the content of the work-related emails that she sent as Sec of State. There is no mystery about that content - the FBI has it and some of them contained classified information. The issue of deleted emails is more about President Bush's and Vice President Cheney's emails on a GOP server that got mysteriously deleted.

Also not sure what you mean by saying that the reason the emails needed to be on a government server is so they can be read by outside parties. No, the reason is that the email server she used was not secure and possibly was vulnerable to hacking.